Many years back during the early beta of RMU I built a quick conversion chart from RM2 to RMU for use with Shadow World. Now that RMU is published, with final professions, I’ve spent some time thinking about what changes would need to be made in Shadow World to align it with the new ruleset.
Before I dive into some thoughts on Professions I wanted to offer one change to be used in “Societal” background options. Currently, RMU offers seven societal back ground options which credibly covers most types of societal styles. But it is missing one important background that could be described as “Ascetic”, “Monastic” or “Gnostic”. This background would include the very young that are indoctrinated into a very rigid and specialized group for intense education and training. It’s clear that very specialized skills and knowledges held by religious organizations, secret societies or similar group would need to start training at a very young age. Examples of these would certainly be the Changramai, but could include Navigators and Loremasters as well as some of Terry’s specialized groups given the very specialized nature of their skillset. It’s hard to imagine becoming one of the feared Changramai or master the skills and spells of the Navigators or Loremasters without an early childhood inception.
Of course, specialized skills at early ages would be very appealing to the character build so it has to be taken in context of the setting and perhaps provide some limitations as well.
To return to the topic of professions, one well known rule “handwave” Terry was known to use often was the “dual profession”. That is, he would have NPC’s with a primary profession and then add a new quasi profession to allow for specialized skills or more commonly an entire new set of base lists. From a rule standpoint, this was always awkward, and it also made for some particular powerful NPC’s.
Even now, it sounds like Nicholas is grappling with this issue. Per the most recent Director’s Briefing he notes:
There are also comments indicating areas where RMU mechanics will need to be incorporated. In thinking my way through this and noting areas where we might have to consider further alterations to make things easier for the RMU edition, such as organisations where members are expected to have two professions, it similarly prompts me to note areas where we might utilise HARP rules to better support Shadow World.
The thing is, that none of this should be much of an issue. Instead, with RMU mechanics, it’s easy to build several new specific professions than rely upon a carve out rule for a dual class. Referring back to my earlier paragragh, it’s clear to me that INTENSIVE training, probably from the earliest age, would be needed to become a Loremaster, Changramai, Navigator or even a Warlock of Itanis. In fact, these organizations would prefer to train the young to ensure their loyalty to the group and to direct all aspects of their development.
If a RMU Shadow World handbook were to be developed, it’s a simple thing to build profession templates for these groups. They are mostly NPC’s, but for some GM’s they would also provide a ruleset for unique player characters. In my mind, having these dual classes was always awkward and the solution is simple.
Does it make sense to have this rule carve out? Should it be addressed with character options? Or, should there be no professions created using the RMU mechanics?
I find that conversations around this topic almost always circle back to three arguments: “power creep/game balance,” “it’s too hard to implement,” and “professions aren’t classes; they represent a character’s worldview.”
On the first—it’s largely theoretical. I suspect the majority of Rolemaster players and GMs haven’t tested it thoroughly, if at all. So the standard answer tends to be an echo chamber response, more repetition than rigor. As for the second: when someone has no real interest in exploring alternatives, they rarely seek workable solutions. “It’s too hard,” “it won’t work,” or “just use the ‘No Profession’ profession” are go-to deflections. They don’t move the conversation forward; they shut it down. Regarding the third, I see professions more as a character-driven narrative device: “I was raised a druid, but took up the sword to defend the forest. Now they call me the Ranger of the Northern Woods.” That’s progression, not heresy.
To address the first point directly: splitting focus through dual- or multi-profession characters offers short-term versatility but long-term compromise. Take, for example, a 10 warrior monk / 10 mage. Once the campaign advances, how often will those martial skills genuinely come into play? Against level 20 threats, standing beside a full fighter, rogue, or cleric, they’re unlikely to keep pace. At best, they start to resemble a semi-caster—which, in RMU, arguably draws the short straw with punishing DP costs and little mechanical payoff.
A potential solution could borrow from the HARP model: introduce a 20 or 30-point talent representing the downtime needed to retrain, locking in a permanent, one-way transition. You might also restrict selections to the character’s native realm, encouraging depth over breadth.